Ex Parte Albrecht et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13114968 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/114,968 05/24/2011 Bruce Patrick Albrecht 23268/YOD (ITWO:0493) 2553
52145 7590 03/01/2017
FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
JENNISON, BRIAN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket@fyiplaw.com
sinclair@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUCE PATRICK ALBRECHT, TODD GERALD BATZLER,
and MICHAEL LEO WALLER
Appeal 2015-003753
Application 13/114,968
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and SCOTT A. DANIELS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bruce Albrecht et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 1—8 and 10-21. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 1, 8, and
17 are independent. Claim 9 was canceled by Appellants in an Amendment
and Response to Office Action dated December 18, 2013. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-003753
Application 13/114,968
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants claim a welding system and method 70 controlling the
welding system as shown diagrammatically, below, in Figure 2. Spec. 19.
The method includes inter alia, steps to acquire information regarding one
or more features of weld joint 72, review features of joint to be welded 74,
utilize operator to perform pseudoweld on weld joint 76, utilize robot to alter
one or more features of pseudo weld based on permissibility window 78, and
perform weld procedure on weld joint utilizing robot and/or operator 80.
Spec. H26—28.
79--x
ACS»E INFORMATION REGARDING ONE
OR MORE FEATURES OF WELD JOINT
FIG, 2
UTILIZE ROBOT TO ALTER ONE OR MORE
FEATURES OF PSEUDQWELD BASED
ON PBMSSKUfV WINDOW
perform mm procedure m mm joint i
UTILIZING ROBOT AND /OR OPERATOR -80
Figure 2, above, depicts a work-flow diagram illustrating method of
controlling a welding system 70 using a pseudo weld, or “virtual weld”
performed by an operator.1
1 The Specification essentially equates the term “virtual weld” as recited in
claim 1 with “pseudoweld” as recited in independent claims 8 and 17. Spec.
127. Based on the Specification, we understand no substantive difference
between these claim terms.
2
Appeal 2015-003753
Application 13/114,968
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of control for an automated welding system,
comprising:
receiving, in processing circuitry, a data set including
one or more features of a joint to be welded;
receiving, in the processing circuitry, a weld procedure
for the joint to be welded, wherein the weld procedure for the
joint is determined based on a sample virtual weld performed by
an operator in a virtual reality system loaded with information
about the joint to be welded or a combination of the sample
virtual weld performed by the operator in the virtual reality
system and a stored procedure developed for a substantially
similar weld joint;
determining, by using the processing circuitry, one or
more desired changes to the weld procedure based on the
received features of the joint to be welded; and
generating, by using the processing circuitry, an
updated weld procedure by altering one or more parameters of
the received weld procedure in accordance with the one or more
desired changes, wherein the one or more parameters are
included within a predetermined allowable data set.
REJECTION
Claims 1—8 and 10—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nagatsuka (EP 1 777 600 Al, pub. April 25, 2007), in
view of Harris (US 2009/0071949 Al, pub. Mar. 19, 2009), and Yamamoto
(US 6,019,606, iss. Feb. 1, 2000).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness rejection over Nagatsuka, Harris, and Yamamoto
The Examiner found that Nagatsuka teaches controlling an automated
welding system by initially receiving data about a joint to be welded. Ans. 2
3
Appeal 2015-003753
Application 13/114,968
(citing Nagatsuka 8:14—22). The Examiner also determined that Nagatsuka
discloses the system receiving a weld procedure based, at least in part, on a
virtual weld performed by an operator on a modeled weld joint. Id. (citing
Nagatsuka 11:17—29). The Examiner further found that Nagatsuka teaches
determining changes to the weld procedure based on the received features of
the joint to be welded and, additionally, altering and updating the weld
procedure based on such changes within a predetermined range. Id. at 2—3.
With respect to the “virtual weld,” and “virtual reality system” limitations,
the Examiner stated that “Nagatsuka fails to disclose regarding claims 1, 8
and 17—21, the sample virtual weld performed by an operator in a virtual
reality system or altering one or more parameters.” Id. at 3. According to
the Examiner, Yamamato “discloses using a virtual teaching tool for
transferring motion from the users[’] movements in a virtual setting to the
device in an actual working environment.” Id. The Examiner contends
further that Harris discloses a welding power supply having a user interface
displaying a weld profile and enabling an operator to alter the weld profile
prior to the welding operation. Id.
Appellants make two specific arguments, first, that the Examiner has
failed to provide sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings that
support the asserted combination of prior art references, and second, even if
the references can be properly combined, the references fail to teach all the
limitations of the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 5—7, 8—12.
With respect to the first argument, Appellants contend specifically
that “the examiner did not provide any line of reasoning for combining
Yamamoto with Nagatsuka.” Id. at 13, 15, 19, 28, 29. As the Examiner’s
only explanation for the asserted combination, Appellants point to the Final
4
Appeal 2015-003753
Application 13/114,968
Office Action where the Examiner states that “[i]t would have been obvious
to adapt Nagatsuka in view of Harris and Yamamoto for providing the
virtual welding profile with changes for showing how changing the
parameters of the welding will [affect] the end result.” See id. at 13—14, 15,
19, 28, 29 (citing Final Act. 4); see Ans. 3.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner has not sustained the initial
burden of factually supporting a prima facie conclusion of obviousness. A
claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the
claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,3 (1966). The key to supporting any
prima facie conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear
articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The Court in KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) noted that the
analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be made
explicit.
We find the Examiner’s explanation for the asserted combination,
noted above, inadequate as a reason to justify the combination of Nagatsuka,
Harris, and Yamamoto. The Examiner’s explanation, above, merely states
the reason to combine in terms of a result, i.e. the result of the combined
references being, apparently, to alter the virtual welding profile because
“changing the parameters of the welding will affect the end result.” Ans. 3.
It is axiomatic that changing parameters can effect changes in a result. Such
a statement fails to reasonably articulate how, or why, one of ordinary skill
5
Appeal 2015-003753
Application 13/114,968
in the art of automated welding technology would have been led to
Yamamoto’s control of robot R with a manually operated pen 10 and
dummy tool T applied on simulated workpiece W, or Harris’s user interface
on a welding power supply, to address any shortcomings or deficiencies in
Nagatsuka.
In addition, the Examiner’s reasoning, such as it is, is unsupported by
evidence or technical details from the record that explain sufficiently why
one of ordinary skill in art would have combined the references. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550
U.S. at 418 (“rejections on obvious grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”). For example, the Examiner points out that Yamamoto
discloses a “virtual setting” where the movement of dummy tool T is input
to guide robot R. Ans. 5—6. The presumption that Yamamoto’s dummy tool
T may be considered as operating in a “virtual reality system” as claimed,
does not provide any persuasive evidence or technical explanation as to why
one of skill in the art would have combined Yamamoto’s manually operated
dummy tool T with Nagatsuka’s process path computer modeling and
taught-point computer interface. Compare Nagatsuka 119 with Yamamoto
3:16—23. The Examiner’s stated rationale — “showing how changing the
parameters of the welding will affect the end result” — appears to relate
solely to Harris, which the Examiner relies on to display a weld profile from
weld parameters that are entered into a user interface. Ans. 3.
The Examiner’s rejection is not supported by an adequate reason and
rational evidentiary underpinnings to combine the prior art in the manner as
6
Appeal 2015-003753
Application 13/114,968
claimed. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (requiring articulated reasoning with
rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of obviousness).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1—8 and
10-21.
Although our determination above ends the inquiry, we are persuaded
based on the dearth of evidence and analysis in the record, to address aspects
of Appellants’ second argument as well.
Turning to Appellants’ second argument, e.g. that none of the
references reveal a “generating” step as recited in claim 1, we agree that the
Examiner has not shown how the cited references, even if properly
combined, teach this feature of the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 11—12.
The Examiner’s Answer contends initially that Nagatsuka discloses the
claimed step of “generating, by using the processing circuitry, an updated
weld procedure by altering one or more parameters of the received weld
procedure in accordance with the one or more desired changes.” Ans. 2—3.
The Examiner fails, however, to provide any citation to the record or point to
any evidence supporting the assertion that Nagatsuka generates an updated
weld procedure from the received pseudowelding procedure as called for in
the independent claims. Id. The Examiner asserts also that Harris teaches
the updated weld procedure limitation. Id. at 5. Referring to Harris’s
Abstract, the Examiner states that “once the parameters have been received
by the power supply, they may be changed and the display 60 will show how
the changes affect the weld.” Id. This statement does not explain how or
why, by simply adjusting existing output parameters of a power supply, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to alter a received
pseudo weld procedure determined from weld joint features received by the
7
Appeal 2015-003753
Application 13/114,968
processing circuit to generate an updated weld procedure, as called for in
claims 1, 8, and 17.2 We cannot find, nor does the Examiner persuasively
point to, any clear disclosure in either Nagatsuka or Harris that meets the
limitation, for example in claim 1, of “determining . . . one or more desired
changes to the weld procedure based on the received features of the joint to
be welded,” and “generating,... an updated weld procedure by altering one
or more parameters of the received weld procedure in accordance with the
one or more desired changes.”
Without sufficient analysis or explanation as to how one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to combine elements of the asserted prior
art and with no detailed evidence from the record showing where,
specifically, the asserted prior art references meet the claim limitations, the
Examiner appears to have selected certain characteristics from among the
different references in an effort to meet the limitations of the claims. This is
the epitome of hindsight. See Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Panduit Corp., 106 S.
Ct. 1578, 1578 (1986). (“[I]n addressing the question of obviousness [one]
must not pick and choose isolated elements from the prior art and combine
them so as to yield the invention in question if such a combination would not
have been obvious at the time of the invention.”).
2 Independent claims 1, 8, and 17 word this limitation differently. Each
independent claim, however, includes the similar limitation of generating an
updated weld procedure by altering a pseudoweld procedure based on weld
joint information stored in the control circuitry. The Examiner’s analysis,
focused on the steps of claim 1, is applied essentially to each independent
claim and does not substantively address the different language of the other
independent claims.
8
Appeal 2015-003753
Application 13/114,968
We determine, therefore, that the Examiner fails also to offer
sufficient detailed explanations and the necessary evidence in the prior art
references of record for finding that the references, either alone or in
combination, disclose the steps and elements of the claimed automated
welding system and control system. For the foregoing reasons we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,8, and 17 and their respective
dependent claims 2—7, 10-16, and 18—21.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1—8 and 10—21.
REVERSED
9